Well, let's see, either they keep the child sedated for that entire time, or it would suffer that entire time.
The child was dying, tallhappy. You want to help the mother? Help her deal with the grief, not live in a fantasy world.
Why so little patience? I guess the mother was somehow defective, as I read here, so she had to be put in her place.
Are you suggesting the mother has unlimited power to dictate a child's medical care?
As I said before, this child would actually be in considerable physical pain if it were not sedated. I would go so far as to say that her decision to continue treatment is tantamount to abuse. Now, if a mother physically abuses her otherwise healthy child, we're supposed to let her?
And let's look at it from the doctor's perspective. Are you saying that a doctor must perform whatever treatments he is asked to perform, and is being paid to perform, no matter how unethical he beieves them to be? If I walk into a doctor's office and tell him to amputate my gangrenous leg, (when it is obviously not), and I hand him a wad of cash, is he obligated to do it?
Not as much unlimited knowledge and power as you.
Inured.
The baby's chest and lungs would not grow with the rest of his body. Therefore, the baby would slowly suffocate, even on the ventillator.